> > As far as a *good* way to control population, I think the most acceptable means would be less creation of life, rather than an increase of killing that which is already living.
> >
> > Tra "that last part almost rhymed" nio
>
> Less creation of life? so, who's going to make the rules about how many children I can have? Congress? Judges? And how are they going to stop me if I go over my *fair* share? Forced abortions, perhaps? I don't think so. Not everyone believes that the world is about to end because of overcrowding...And I'm one of 'em. And I highly doubt that "population control" would solve any problems...only make some people mad, like me...
> If we say that women have the right to kill their babies, then what about the choice to have them...I realize that's probably not what you meant in you post, I just thought I'd take this opportunity to state my opinion.
>
> Ti'Don't usually get this passionate about a subject, but this is something I really believe in"cia

The government would be the last authority I'd reccomend to step in and dictate who gets to breed and who doesn't. In my statement above, I simply meant that in response to overcrowding, choosing "not creating" would be more acceptable over "killing that which is already created". Granted, no one wants to be told whether they can or can't procreate (although we could all put together a list of persons who *shouldn't* be allowed to), so it's not a realistic solution.
Our only acceptable solution is to continue to expand into undeveloped areas, allow people to reproduce at their discretion, and let medical science continue to find ways of allowing people to live longer healthier lives (see previous posts in this thread).

Tra "Marching to Mars" nio